In a CCU Chain, the most important element is obviously its body, which is made up of one or more links that are none other than upgrades and warbond upgrades. As explained in the introduction, the aim of the CCU Chain is to accumulate several warbond upgrades in order to accumulate discounts.
Consequently, a link must comply as closely as possible with the following rules:
Every link consists of an entry point and an exit point. The entry point must be easily accessible and preferably "evolution-proof", while the exit point can be "evolutive ".
Every link should, if possible, offer a discount, as this is the aim, otherwise the chain loses all interest...
Every link must cost as little as possible, as warbond will involve real money, and the aim here is to spend as little real money as possible.
What is an "evolutive" link?
A link is "evolutive" if it is built on the basis of a vessel whose value can change at any time. So any link that involves a ship not yet in play is generally evolutionary, since when the ship comes into play, it will probably increase in value.
Hence the importance of placing such a vessel in a chain link...
If an evolving ship is placed at the end of a link, any increase will be good to take as long as the value of the ship involved does not exceed that of the targeted ship.
Example: Once again, let's take the case of the Odyssez at $250 HT.
This vessel's chain includes an evolutionary link that has had a major impact on the result obtained. This was a CCU warbon Reclaimer to Merchantman purchased for $15 when the BMM had just passed the $350 mark. At the time, this CCU warbond gave a discount of $25 on the entire chain, and over time the BMM gained in value.
During the IAE 2952, the BMM reached the $650 HT mark while remaining below the value of the Odyssey (my target), which meant that this CCU warbond allowed me a discount of $225 on the Odyssey, i.e. almost 36% of the value of the targeted vessel in a single link that initially cost $15.
Beware of the critical aspect of seeing the value of a ship involved in your chain exceed that of the target ship.
It's best to finalise the ship before this happens. If you can't, make sure you have a 'go back' upgrade in your hangar and that this upgrade doesn't break your chain.
If we take the previous example of the BMM compared with the Odyssey, at AEI 2952 there is only $50 between the two ships, and it is highly likely that the next upgrade will be at least $50, so the two ships will arrive at equal value. If you don't want to find yourself unable to upgrade the BMM to the Odyssey because of a zero (or negative) CCU, it becomes crucial to either apply the chain before the new increase, or to anticipate and have in reserve an upgrade of the BMM to the Odyssey at $50 which will remain functional whatever the future value of the ships and as long as you keep it in your hangar (you mustn't melt it). In my case, I preferred to finalise my chain by applying all the CCUs up to the Odyssey.
Of course, this is an exceptional case, but opportunities like this can regularly arise because all the ships that are still in the concept phase give you the chance to create new evolutionary links.
What's more, in the case of such a link, there's no requirement to use a warbond CCU. For example, a simple standard CCU from the Cutlass Red to the Vulture, paid for at $5 with store credit during IAE 2952, was transformed into an evolutionary link once Alpha 3.18 was released and the Vulture came into play, which then increased.
Let's now look at the opposite case of the evolutionary vessel placed at the start of the chain, as it will lose all its interest if the vessel increases in value.
As a general rule, it is preferable to only take ships that are already available in-game, as they are less likely to increase in price (although this can happen), and if possible, ships that are easy to access.
Example: Suppose that during an IAE, a CCU warbond comes to offer you a $10 discount on the Prospector.
In such a situation, you have several options at $5:
- Ballista to Prospector
- Hornet Tracker Mk I to Prospector
- Hull B to Prospector
- Vulture to Prospector
The future has shown us that the Vulture towards the Prospector was the worst choice of all, because the latter increased in value when it was put into play and is now worth less than the Prospector. This is the kind of thing you need to anticipate and avoid. What's more, even though this is no longer the case, the Vulture was on limited sale for the year, so you didn't have the chance to complete your chain once the IAE was over if you hadn't anticipated this by taking a junction CCU.
The Hull B to Prospector is no good either, here again the ship is on occasional sale and once again we are dealing with a concept ship, you know that at some point the ship will see its value change and kill your upgrade. Why take such a risk?
The Ballista or Hornet Tracker to Prospector are already safer because the Ballista and Hornet are in play and it's highly unlikely that their price will ever change, especially as both are available year-round.
In fact, the future has shown us that even a "seemingly safe" vessel can become a source of unforeseeable problems. And with good reason: from 2023 to 2024, the Hornet Mk I series underwent a major upheaval, with an increase in the range, then a withdrawal of the Mk I series from the market after the Invictus of 2024. The kind of thing that makes it essential to keep a close eye on market developments, at the risk of seeing a chain foolishly destroyed.
The availability of an entry-level ship is important!
In addition to the scalability of a ship over time, it is also important to ensure that you can complete your chain at any time and not be dependent on having to wait for the next IAE, Invictus or any other event offering sales of ships that are not available all year round.
For example, at IAE 2952 we had a warbond upgrade to the F7C-M Super Hornet for a discount of $15. This CCU only offers two options at $10:
- Prospector to F7C-M Super Hornet Mk I
- Razor EX to F7C-M Super Hornet Mk I
Both the Prospector and the Razor EX are in play, so in theory there's no risk of their prices changing, but the difference between them is their availability: the Prospector is available all year round, whereas the Razor EX is rarely offered for sale. So if you have to make a choice, it's best to go for the Prospector.
Of course, in the context of IAE 2952, as long as Misc day hadn't yet arrived when the CCU-warbond to the F7C-M Super Hornet was proposed, there was always the doubt that "maybe there's going to be a warbond on the Razor EX". As a result, you're faced with a choice between playing it safe with the Prospector, or taking a gamble with the Razor Ex. Or else, you take both, but be careful with your budget - something you should always keep in mind as soon as you start acquiring multiple choices.
The availability of the ship at the end of the chain is irrelevant!
On the other hand, you don't have to worry about whether a ship is available all year round or not when it comes off the chain, as the upgrade tool gives you all the existing ships when you build your upgrade.
The accordion effect
The accordion effect is a rather special case where, following a change in the value of a ship, a CCU loses power, but in the end this doesn't matter because the CCU with which it is linked recovers what the other has lost. This is a fairly rare situation, and means that the rule about not having an upgradeable ship at the start of the chain has not been respected.
The benefits and dangers of modularity
When I wrote the first version of this article, there were no modular ships yet in play. But at Invictus 2024, the modular Retaliator was put into play, and this had major repercussions on upgrades involving both Retaliator variants, as well as increasing the size of the ship.
To sum up the facts:
The "Retaliator Base" and the "Retaliator Bomber" became a single vessel, the (modular) "Retaliator".
The value of the Retaliator has fallen from $150 to $175, representing a $25 gain on an upgrade involving the old Retaliator Base.
The Retaliator Bomber has been withdrawn from sale, and existing CCU involving this vessel allow you to obtain the modular Retaliator with the two Torpedo modules, except that the value of the vessel falls back to $175 HT as the modules are added to the Pledge detail, i.e. a loss of $100 if your aim was to exploit the CCU in a chain.
To date, the only interest in a CCU warbond Mercury to Bomber at $5 HT acquired during an IAE or Invictus allows you to obtain a Retaliator with the two Torpedo modules and to apply an LTI on the whole if the Token at the beginning of the chain is LTI. But it's useless as a link in a CCU chain...
Note that the opposite case also works, since the Retaliator Base and Bomber have become one and the same vessel, it has become possible to combine a CCU to the "Retaliator Base" with a CCU starting with the "Retaliator Bomber", allowing $100 HT savings on the chain (or $125 HT if you had an upgrade to the Retaliator Base from before its increase).
Indirectly, the Retaliator case is worth considering for future chains involving a modular ship, such as the Avenger or Caterpillar, which can be re-evaluated at any time as soon as their modularity comes into play.
For a ship like the Caterpillar, this could mean a re-evaluation of the ship's price and the appearance of Cargo modules, which will be grafted onto the pledge (in addition to being sold individually for those who haven't anticipated the introduction of modularity). For Avengers, however, we're likely to see a global regrouping of the different versions into a single modular vessel, as we've seen with the Retaliator, and once again a re-evaluation of the vessel's price and the arrival of the different modules on the pledges, distorting the value of the upgrade as part of a CCU chain.
Hornet Mk I End-of-Service: an exceptional case
In addition to the Retaliator's modularity, Invictus 2024 was rich in surprises with the end-of-service of the Hornet Mk I. It's fair to say that CCU chain enthusiasts had to be cautious from the moment they had to question their chains involving a Hornet Mk I series vessel.
With these vessels withdrawn from sale, it became crucial for CCU chain backers to ensure they had junction upgrades with the Hornets involved in their chains.
As luck would have it, this is probably the one and only occasion when such a situation should arise. But it may give us a glimpse into the future of CCU chains for the day when CIG decides not to sell any more ships at all, or to put an end to upgrades in the not-too-distant future.